Recently, while reading replies to another post ("The Difficulty of Principle"), I realized that I had been rather narrow in my thinking about the supporters of big government. Several readers pointed that in their thoughts the main proponents of big government were those who wanted something from the state. And, once I thought about it, they had a point. However, perhaps because my focus has always been on the politicians and political theorists, I had always focused on those who saw themselves as directing the state, not as the beneficiaries.( "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism") Needless to say, from my perspective, the motives were very different.( "Appealing to Arrogance", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "In A Nutshell", "Cognitive Dissonance Part 2", "Changing Incentives") All of which made me ask whether Ihad perhaps been too narrow in my thinking, if, perhaps there was more than one reason for promoting big government.

After some time spent mulling it over, I concluded there are actually three groups which support the growth of government.

The first group is the least ideological, though probably the largest. These are the fuzzy-minded idealists. They are not, despite the implications of the name, uniformly of the left. Many are, espousing a variety of big government solutions aimed at "helping people", but there are also a number on the right, and not just among "compassionate conservatives". Protectionist paleo-cons ("Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "Protectionism", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?", "Protectionism Right and Left") are also in this group, as are conservatives who "pragmatically" espouse various types of "limited" government interventions ( "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases",  "What We Deserve", "Special Cases"). In fact, by and large, the entire group, right, left and center, is made up of "pragmatists" ("The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "Pragmatism Revisited", "Pragmatism Revistied, Again") who argue for "whatever works". Thus, while their policies tend to promote the growth of government, they do not have a uniform philosophy. If pressed into a corner, they may eventually espouse the rather negative views of mankind held by the more orthodox interventionists, but in everyday life they tend not to give much thought to such matters, and instead simply promote big government policies in specific areas because, for whatever reason, they imagine they "work". However, the single characteristic that defines them, and the reason I see them as a distinct group is, whatever their philosophy, they promote these policies from altruistic motives, and, more significantly, without hope of determining policy. In other words they do not plan to profit or rule should their idea come into general use. So, while they are harmful because of the policies they support, they are exactly what they seem, misguided idealists.

The second group, the one in the minds of those writing the comments in response to my post, is made up of the sponges. And no, this is not just welfare mothers and food stamp recipients. Yes, a large number are those groups, but in this group I include anyone who promotes big government not out of any consistent philosophy, or out of vague selfless motives, but for purely mercenary reasons. Be it a section 8 renter or an agribusiness chairman, anyone who promotes big government for their own benefit is a sponge.

Finally, we come to the frustrated commissars. These are the people I think of when I write about those promoting big government having a negative view of mankind and an arrogant approach to government. These are the people who imagine everyone else is incompetent to run their own lives and needs the help of a handful of elites to tell them what to do. They sometimes are idealists who hope to rule others for their benefit, or they may be greedy sorts who hope to profit from telling others what to do, so there are many who are also part of the other two groups, but if an individual believes that people are largely incompetent and that he should be able to tell them what to do for their own good, he is a frustrated commissar.

Now of the three the first is clearly the one with which we can reason the most easily. To varying degrees they are open to arguments from reason. If they are more interested in helping than they are committed to their philosophy (and many are), showing them the harms of big government may move them to a more sound philosophy. It is form this group that most leftists turned rightist or libertarian come.

The second group is probably the hardest to convince as they are apolitical, they are just in it for the money.Now, some would argue that they should then want the free market as it is better financially for all, but as I explain in "Anti-Business Businesses ", some individual firms do benefit from anti-business legislation. And on the lower end of the scale, individual welfare recipients are never going to go for the free market, as there is simply no mechanism to provide them with support for doing nothing. Fortunately, the individual sponges vote in small numbers, while the large scale corporate, union and professional sponges, while having political influence, are small in number, and open to public shame should their greediness be exposed.

Which leaves us with the final group, the frustrated dictators. And that is also the reason why I have written about them so much. It is this group which provides the theorists of big government, the politicians and the most ardent supporters. The idealists may be the mass of foot soldiers for big government, but the generals are all from this category. And it is a group which I doubt we will ever win over.

It is simply unlikely we will ever convince someone who thinks mankind is uniformly incompetent that allowing individuals freedom is a good idea. However we can do something almost as good. We can force them to explain their beliefs. If we continue to ask them questions, why people can't negotiate their own wages, decide what to eat, and so on. Once it becomes obvious that their entire philosophy is based upon the assumption the common man is entirely incompetent, it is unlikely they will enjoy the broad support they have today. Even less once the other half is revealed. Not just "you don't know how to negotiate your own salary" but the implicit "but I do". The implicit arrogance of those pushing this idea is enough, I think, to turn off all but the most ardent statist.

But I am getting ahead of myself. All I had intended was to point out the three different types of supporter for big government, authoritarian plans. And I think I have done that. How to argue with them, which are the easiest to win over and all the rest can wait for a future post.

I suppose I should add one final point. There is nothing of the "right' or "left" here. As I explained in "The Political Spectrum", right and left are often used very imprecisely, and many supposedly on the right are every bit as authoritarian as any leftist. No, the sole test is whether an individual sees government as a tool with limited uses ("An Analogy For Government") or as a "Swiss Army knife" suitable for every problem that comes along. The more uses one finds for government, the more likely one is pushing an authoritarian vision. And the other trappings, whether right or left, internationalist or nationalist, socialist, communist, protectionist or other don't matter.

POSTSCRIPT

Please don't take the "commissar" term to imply this is only a problem of the left. Cary Nation, or the blue nose banning Ulysses is every bit as much of a commissar as the person seeking to nationalize medicine. It is the intent to impose one's vision of "perfection" on others which defines the commissar, not the political bent or the accidental features of the methods used.